Al Gore recently expressed that he was wrong to champion the use of corn as a fuel alternative. Speaking in Greece, Gore noted that his own promotion of the food as fuel was likely influenced by his political aspirations and farmers in his home state of Tennessee and the important caucus state, Iowa.
Gore is absolutely right. Turning food into fuel is little more than a financial boondoggle to corn producers. The fuel created is neither efficient nor cheap. Its real value is the subsidy to the producers. Its real costs is to the food budgets of the poor.
Alternative energy is a necessity, but converting food into fuel seems incomprehensible. Incomprehensible to everyone but a corn producer.
The subsidy for corn to ethanol is due to expire. Whether it is renewed or not will likely depend on the factors that have little or nothing to do with energy independence or security. Instead, it will depend on lobbyists. Who will win? In a battle between the profits of agribusiness and food for the poor, I'm afraid the decision has already been made. Please pass the fuel.
Showing posts with label sustainability. Show all posts
Showing posts with label sustainability. Show all posts
Monday, November 22, 2010
Friday, November 12, 2010
Why We're Doomed - Part 3
This morning I stopped at a local cafe for breakfast. Having an aversion to chain restaurants I am always on the lookout for unique local places. Traveling a route that I don't normally take I spied a red barn styled place that had a full parking lot, the greatest endorsement any restaurant can have. When I entered the place appeared full of promise. It was just the way I like local places; cramped, chaotic and confusing. Coffee was only ninety-nine cents.
Then the food came. First of all, let me say that the food was first rate. Tasty and filling, all at a reasonable price. I will never eat there again. The food came served on a plastic plate with plastic utensils. The coffee was in a Styrofoam cup.
Clearly this packed restaurant could afford to upgrade to real plates and silverware. I cannot imagine that in the long term it is not cheaper to buy reusable plates, cups, and utensils than to constantly buy them and throw them away. I inquired as to why they used the approach they did. The answer was that it cost too much in the short run to make the change. In effect, short term costs were more relevant to the owners than long term profitability. Environmental costs aside, this is simply a bad business decision.
I grow more pessimistic every day when it comes to reversing the tide building towards an impending ecological disaster. When businesses won't do the environmentally responsible thing even when it is in their economic interests there is little hope that society as a whole will address these issues.
Forget cap and trade legislation. The economic world is governed by short term concerns and appears unable to consider what is in its best interests in the long term. My local restaurant is only a symbol of this mindset. They will get no more of my business, no matter how good the food.
Then the food came. First of all, let me say that the food was first rate. Tasty and filling, all at a reasonable price. I will never eat there again. The food came served on a plastic plate with plastic utensils. The coffee was in a Styrofoam cup.
Clearly this packed restaurant could afford to upgrade to real plates and silverware. I cannot imagine that in the long term it is not cheaper to buy reusable plates, cups, and utensils than to constantly buy them and throw them away. I inquired as to why they used the approach they did. The answer was that it cost too much in the short run to make the change. In effect, short term costs were more relevant to the owners than long term profitability. Environmental costs aside, this is simply a bad business decision.
I grow more pessimistic every day when it comes to reversing the tide building towards an impending ecological disaster. When businesses won't do the environmentally responsible thing even when it is in their economic interests there is little hope that society as a whole will address these issues.
Forget cap and trade legislation. The economic world is governed by short term concerns and appears unable to consider what is in its best interests in the long term. My local restaurant is only a symbol of this mindset. They will get no more of my business, no matter how good the food.
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
Nagoya: Important & Unnoticed
One hundred ninety three (193) nations began meeting today in Nagoya, Japan to address the issue of biodiversity. Following up on the 1992 Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) negotiated in Rio de Janeiro at the Earth Summit, the task before the attendees is enormous. The goals outlined in the 1992 Convention have remained largely unmet with continued deforestation and an accelerated loss of species. Biodiversity as an issue is largely ignored by the public and political figures. The United States remains one of the few countries that has failed to ratify the 1992 agreement.
Little attention has been given to this meeting. Hopes that the world had begun to recognize the necessity of action to address major environmental concerns appear to have been premature. Last years climate conference in Copenhagen ended without any agreement and momentum seems lost.
As I satirized in my novel, The Dirt People (2007, Blue Throat Press), governmental inaction is largely the by-product of a lack of political will and corporate manipulation (through both lobbying and propaganda). This "fiddling as Rome burns," lack of effort to deal with our environmental problems is often couched in economic terms. The costs of green energy are amplified, the effects of clean ups are exaggerated and the benefits of sustainability are minimized. Meanwhile, phthalates (see yesterday's post) and other toxic chemicals are ubiquitous in our environment, mining disasters continue to occur, oil platforms continue to explode and that giant mass of plastic goo continues to grow in the Pacific.
The lack of effort on a worldwide level to address our expanding environmental destruction is alarming. As China and other nations continue to develop and consume, attempting to emulate the Western world in its consumption and attendant destruction, the future is imperiled. Concern for the wealth of transnational corporations seems to be more important to politicians than the health of the planet and its citizens.
Why is this not the lead story in the news? Why is the environment not the major issue of every election? Why is it that I expect it to get worse?
Only when the last tree has died, when the last river has been poisoned, and the last fish has been caught, only then will you realize that you can't eat money. -Cree saying
Little attention has been given to this meeting. Hopes that the world had begun to recognize the necessity of action to address major environmental concerns appear to have been premature. Last years climate conference in Copenhagen ended without any agreement and momentum seems lost.
As I satirized in my novel, The Dirt People (2007, Blue Throat Press), governmental inaction is largely the by-product of a lack of political will and corporate manipulation (through both lobbying and propaganda). This "fiddling as Rome burns," lack of effort to deal with our environmental problems is often couched in economic terms. The costs of green energy are amplified, the effects of clean ups are exaggerated and the benefits of sustainability are minimized. Meanwhile, phthalates (see yesterday's post) and other toxic chemicals are ubiquitous in our environment, mining disasters continue to occur, oil platforms continue to explode and that giant mass of plastic goo continues to grow in the Pacific.
The lack of effort on a worldwide level to address our expanding environmental destruction is alarming. As China and other nations continue to develop and consume, attempting to emulate the Western world in its consumption and attendant destruction, the future is imperiled. Concern for the wealth of transnational corporations seems to be more important to politicians than the health of the planet and its citizens.
Why is this not the lead story in the news? Why is the environment not the major issue of every election? Why is it that I expect it to get worse?
Only when the last tree has died, when the last river has been poisoned, and the last fish has been caught, only then will you realize that you can't eat money. -Cree saying
Thursday, January 7, 2010
Why We're Doomed
I just saw a news report from the International Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas. The reporter was hyping a new battery operated bicycle. He referred to this as "cutting edge" technology and trumpeted all that is technology. This upbeat report left me with the distinct feeling that we are doomed.
No, I do not mean that a bicycle is going to destroy the world. Nor do I think that the story was necessarily representative of the products on display. What made me feel we are doomed was the obvious and oblivious excitement the reporter expressed concerning a bicycle he did not need to peddle. It is our endless fascination with gadgets that make me feel that all is lost. No matter how inane, no matter how useless, or no matter, as in this case, how redundant the invention as long as it is dressed up as new technology we line up like lemmings.
Technology comes at a price. That cost, unfortunately, is borne by the natural world. In the present example, even if the battery is solar charged, it still has to be produced and eventually it will require disposal. This adds two environmental costs to the manufacture of the bicycle. It also removes the secondary effect of exercise that this mode of transportation will incur.
Granted, one could argue that riding one of these bikes is better than driving a car, but you can ride a bike with or without a battery. The point is that fascination with technology has led to a denial of the effects of the costs of production of most of the tools of the technological and information age. For example, by all calculations electronic readers have a greater environmental impact than traditional books. Paper, produced in the proper manner with the rights sources (i.e. hemp, not trees), can be a sustainable, renewable crop. The mined material in an e-reader will never be replaced.
The fascination with new technology is akin to a child's desire for a new toy. The fact that it is shiny and new are more important than whether it is necessary or even wanted. A battery operated bicycle and the electric book are not the only examples of this mindset. One of the worst examples of this effort to bring technology where it is not needed has to be the electric trashcans in the Atlanta Hartsfield Airport. Ironically, the writing on the cans boast of the airports efforts at recycling.
This fascination assists in the continual introduction of products to replace and upgrade what is basically the same product. HDTV, flat screen technology, even the advent of color broadcasts have essentially served the primary purpose of getting the consumer to continually buy the same product. The transition from LP's to 8-tracks to cassettes to CD's did little for music but caused the consumer, no matter their preferences, to have to purchase different devices. Now, turntables are making a comeback and LP's have been the rage for years. The iPod is just a Walkman with more bells and whistles. The Walkman in turn was just a glorified transistor radio.
Somehow, all of these things are seen as advances. The slow introduction of one generation of technology after another is causing an acceleration in consumption that is unwarranted by need. Technology may have benefits but it also has costs. These costs are at times significant, as when there are industrial accidents, or the more likely everyday environmental impacts. The more we produce useless products, ignore the costs of technology, accept planned obsolescence and the commodification of information, the closer we come to jumping over the cliffs.
The planet has great problems. One of the major problems that we rarely discuss is the fact that we have a world population approaching 7 billion and growing exponentially but that we have finite resources. Either something has to give or something has to change. Otherwise, there will be conflict. We must change the mindset that views technology as the solution to our problems. Technology is only a tool. If technology was the solution your pencil could do math.
The choice is not between technology or a pre-industrial existence. The choice is between our present system of consumerism and that of sustainability. We can either use it all up or we can make it last. We will not make it last by putting batteries on a bicycle.
A note about lemmings. Contrary to popular belief they do not line up and jump off the cliffs into the sea. This misconception was created by film footage in which they were herded over the cliffs for cinematic effect. Consumerism is based on the herd instinct while advertising is kind of like a sheep dog.
No, I do not mean that a bicycle is going to destroy the world. Nor do I think that the story was necessarily representative of the products on display. What made me feel we are doomed was the obvious and oblivious excitement the reporter expressed concerning a bicycle he did not need to peddle. It is our endless fascination with gadgets that make me feel that all is lost. No matter how inane, no matter how useless, or no matter, as in this case, how redundant the invention as long as it is dressed up as new technology we line up like lemmings.
Technology comes at a price. That cost, unfortunately, is borne by the natural world. In the present example, even if the battery is solar charged, it still has to be produced and eventually it will require disposal. This adds two environmental costs to the manufacture of the bicycle. It also removes the secondary effect of exercise that this mode of transportation will incur.
Granted, one could argue that riding one of these bikes is better than driving a car, but you can ride a bike with or without a battery. The point is that fascination with technology has led to a denial of the effects of the costs of production of most of the tools of the technological and information age. For example, by all calculations electronic readers have a greater environmental impact than traditional books. Paper, produced in the proper manner with the rights sources (i.e. hemp, not trees), can be a sustainable, renewable crop. The mined material in an e-reader will never be replaced.
The fascination with new technology is akin to a child's desire for a new toy. The fact that it is shiny and new are more important than whether it is necessary or even wanted. A battery operated bicycle and the electric book are not the only examples of this mindset. One of the worst examples of this effort to bring technology where it is not needed has to be the electric trashcans in the Atlanta Hartsfield Airport. Ironically, the writing on the cans boast of the airports efforts at recycling.
This fascination assists in the continual introduction of products to replace and upgrade what is basically the same product. HDTV, flat screen technology, even the advent of color broadcasts have essentially served the primary purpose of getting the consumer to continually buy the same product. The transition from LP's to 8-tracks to cassettes to CD's did little for music but caused the consumer, no matter their preferences, to have to purchase different devices. Now, turntables are making a comeback and LP's have been the rage for years. The iPod is just a Walkman with more bells and whistles. The Walkman in turn was just a glorified transistor radio.
Somehow, all of these things are seen as advances. The slow introduction of one generation of technology after another is causing an acceleration in consumption that is unwarranted by need. Technology may have benefits but it also has costs. These costs are at times significant, as when there are industrial accidents, or the more likely everyday environmental impacts. The more we produce useless products, ignore the costs of technology, accept planned obsolescence and the commodification of information, the closer we come to jumping over the cliffs.
The planet has great problems. One of the major problems that we rarely discuss is the fact that we have a world population approaching 7 billion and growing exponentially but that we have finite resources. Either something has to give or something has to change. Otherwise, there will be conflict. We must change the mindset that views technology as the solution to our problems. Technology is only a tool. If technology was the solution your pencil could do math.
The choice is not between technology or a pre-industrial existence. The choice is between our present system of consumerism and that of sustainability. We can either use it all up or we can make it last. We will not make it last by putting batteries on a bicycle.
A note about lemmings. Contrary to popular belief they do not line up and jump off the cliffs into the sea. This misconception was created by film footage in which they were herded over the cliffs for cinematic effect. Consumerism is based on the herd instinct while advertising is kind of like a sheep dog.
Thursday, September 24, 2009
One Leap Forward, Two Leaps Back
In a post a couple of days ago I applauded China for taking a stance to address climate change. As was quickly pointed out to me by my friend Doug, China will likely backtrack on its promises.
The point about China is well made. They have paid lip service to human rights and open government but continue to lead the world in executions and censorship. It is also apparent that China is more concerned with maintaining domestic control than international opinion.
Whether for propaganda or genuine effort, China is taking steps that will propel it ahead of the U.S. in producing clean and sustainable energy. The Chinese do this in spite of the fact that they churn out industrial toxins at a chilling rate. What they are trying to do is leapfrog generations of technology and lead the world. The development of clean and sustainable energy would seem to be an obvious avenue for investment and economic development for any nation concerned about its future. Failure to pursue a course to become the world leader in this technology will doom the U.S. to second rate status as a nation.
The Chinese, it is true, operate only for the good of China. They see the necessity of this course. Will we move forward or backward?
The point about China is well made. They have paid lip service to human rights and open government but continue to lead the world in executions and censorship. It is also apparent that China is more concerned with maintaining domestic control than international opinion.
Whether for propaganda or genuine effort, China is taking steps that will propel it ahead of the U.S. in producing clean and sustainable energy. The Chinese do this in spite of the fact that they churn out industrial toxins at a chilling rate. What they are trying to do is leapfrog generations of technology and lead the world. The development of clean and sustainable energy would seem to be an obvious avenue for investment and economic development for any nation concerned about its future. Failure to pursue a course to become the world leader in this technology will doom the U.S. to second rate status as a nation.
The Chinese, it is true, operate only for the good of China. They see the necessity of this course. Will we move forward or backward?
Thursday, July 30, 2009
Green World
Must gasoline prices rise to $4.50 again before we show any more concern for the fact that our economy is based on a resource that is disappearing? Beyond its scarcity and assured future increases in costs, the use of petroleum is driving the environmental disaster that looms on the horizon.
Must climate patterns go completely haywire before the world moves beyond expressing concern for the effects of climate change and debating whether we can afford to curb carbon emissions?
Economic recovery could easily be aided by a massive investment in green infrastructure that would have the immediate effect of adding jobs and capital to the economy and the long term effect of energy independence.
Moving towards green energy addresses both the environmental and energy crises. What are we waiting for, some way to put a meter on sunlight so profits can be continually generated? The answer to why we are not moving towards sustainability in all aspects of life lies in the previous question. It is the green world of money that is preventing a green world of sustainability. Profit is in waste and consumption. Materialism is antithetical to the ultimate goal of a sustainable world.
Our economy is sometimes defined in terms of its growth. In fact, if the economy does not grow, it is considered to be in recession. In other words, if we are not consuming more, the world of green money is not happy.
But for the world, the green world of sustainability, consumption and waste are to be reduced and eliminated.
Why do we refuse to address the need for a sustainable future, free of the shackels of consumerism and an outdated petroleum-driven society? Follow the money.
Me, I'm going back to work on my sunlight meter.
Must climate patterns go completely haywire before the world moves beyond expressing concern for the effects of climate change and debating whether we can afford to curb carbon emissions?
Economic recovery could easily be aided by a massive investment in green infrastructure that would have the immediate effect of adding jobs and capital to the economy and the long term effect of energy independence.
Moving towards green energy addresses both the environmental and energy crises. What are we waiting for, some way to put a meter on sunlight so profits can be continually generated? The answer to why we are not moving towards sustainability in all aspects of life lies in the previous question. It is the green world of money that is preventing a green world of sustainability. Profit is in waste and consumption. Materialism is antithetical to the ultimate goal of a sustainable world.
Our economy is sometimes defined in terms of its growth. In fact, if the economy does not grow, it is considered to be in recession. In other words, if we are not consuming more, the world of green money is not happy.
But for the world, the green world of sustainability, consumption and waste are to be reduced and eliminated.
Why do we refuse to address the need for a sustainable future, free of the shackels of consumerism and an outdated petroleum-driven society? Follow the money.
Me, I'm going back to work on my sunlight meter.
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
Oil is STILL Over
Everyone seems to have quit panicking and returned to the roads. The price of gasoline has now dropped below $2 a gallon and hovers around the $55 a barrel price. Concern for the future of our energy supplies has plummeted with the price of oil.
Hear this:
OIL IS STILL OVER!
Just because the price has momentarily dropped does not mean that the problem is solved. The problem has just become a little worse. Every action, including a drop in price, that leads to greater consumption only serves to make the problem worse.
As a commodity, oil is done. There are the problems of declining supply (see Hibbert's Peak) and increasing demand (all the new drivers in China and India, just to start). Couple these with a realization that the burning of petroleum is complicating another major problem, global warming, and it is clear that the oil based economy must cease.
The solution to two problems, energy and environment, must occur simultaneously. Both problems require solutions that take the other into consideration. Sustainability must become the new focus, not cheap exploitation of resources and profit margins.
To stop seeking alternatives only due to momentary price shifts is the same folly that we have engaged in for the last 30 years. Time to change. Change the oil, it's over.
Hear this:
OIL IS STILL OVER!
Just because the price has momentarily dropped does not mean that the problem is solved. The problem has just become a little worse. Every action, including a drop in price, that leads to greater consumption only serves to make the problem worse.
As a commodity, oil is done. There are the problems of declining supply (see Hibbert's Peak) and increasing demand (all the new drivers in China and India, just to start). Couple these with a realization that the burning of petroleum is complicating another major problem, global warming, and it is clear that the oil based economy must cease.
The solution to two problems, energy and environment, must occur simultaneously. Both problems require solutions that take the other into consideration. Sustainability must become the new focus, not cheap exploitation of resources and profit margins.
To stop seeking alternatives only due to momentary price shifts is the same folly that we have engaged in for the last 30 years. Time to change. Change the oil, it's over.
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
Our Dying Planet
In a report form Michael Graczyk of the Associated Press, researchers at Texas A&M University, led by Steve DeMarco have noted that the dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico is expected to be larger than ever this year. The dead zone is an area where ocean life cannot live. The runoff from fertilizers and other petro-chemicals are the suspected culprits. According to other researchers at LSU and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association this zone will be roughly the size of New Jersey. Other dead zones have been discovered throughout the world.
What are we doing to ourselves? Must we kill every living thing on the planet before we concede that there is a problem? Global warming, the energy crisis, dead zones in the ocean, shifting animal migration patterns, rising extinction rates, all have one common link: humans.
It is our lifestyle that is creating a myriad of problems across the globe. Attempts to address any of these issues without addressing the way in which we live in the 21st century will all be doomed to fail unless we confront the underlying basis of these problems. Lifestyles based on consumption and the accumulation of material goods all demand an approach to the world that only exacerbates our problems.
As long as the well-being of humanity is defined as living a life of ease and the needs of the economy are the primary factors under consideration we will never solve the problems mentioned herein. In fact, far from solving them, we can expect that the current approach will lead to false solutions, which at best, will allow us to hold even. Treading water is no way to progress.
The health of the planet must become our primary consideration. An approach that attempts to restore the overall health of the earth would begin to solve many of our other problems as well. This is not a novel idea nor do I claim credit for it. Living sustainably, in harmony with the earth, is wisdom that many indigenous cultures have tried to pass along. Will we listen?
What are we doing to ourselves? Must we kill every living thing on the planet before we concede that there is a problem? Global warming, the energy crisis, dead zones in the ocean, shifting animal migration patterns, rising extinction rates, all have one common link: humans.
It is our lifestyle that is creating a myriad of problems across the globe. Attempts to address any of these issues without addressing the way in which we live in the 21st century will all be doomed to fail unless we confront the underlying basis of these problems. Lifestyles based on consumption and the accumulation of material goods all demand an approach to the world that only exacerbates our problems.
As long as the well-being of humanity is defined as living a life of ease and the needs of the economy are the primary factors under consideration we will never solve the problems mentioned herein. In fact, far from solving them, we can expect that the current approach will lead to false solutions, which at best, will allow us to hold even. Treading water is no way to progress.
The health of the planet must become our primary consideration. An approach that attempts to restore the overall health of the earth would begin to solve many of our other problems as well. This is not a novel idea nor do I claim credit for it. Living sustainably, in harmony with the earth, is wisdom that many indigenous cultures have tried to pass along. Will we listen?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
.jpg)
Posts
